UCC 9-202 compliance issues with our multi-state equipment financing - debtor name variations causing headaches

Yes, we pulled the articles from all three states and that's where we're seeing the comma variations. Colorado shows no comma, Utah shows with comma, and the older Utah filing shows the abbreviated version. It's like they can't decide on a standard format even within the same state over time.

That's frustrating but not uncommon. For UCC 9-202 purposes, you typically want to use the exact name as it appears on the most recent articles of incorporation or organization in the state where the debtor is organized. The comma usually doesn't matter for search logic, but some states are pickier than others.

Wait, I thought UCC 9-202 was about purchase money security interests? Are we talking about the same provision here?

The debtor was organized in Colorado originally, so that's our main UCC-1 filing. But since the equipment moves between facilities in all three states, we're doing fixture filings in Utah and some personal property filings for the mobile equipment. It's the fixture filings where we're getting the most rejections.

Fixture filings are always more sensitive to name matching. Have you tried calling the filing offices directly? Sometimes they can tell you exactly what format they expect, especially for multi-state entities.

This whole thread is making me nervous about our own multi-state deal coming up next month. How do you even keep track of all these different requirements?

Never heard of Certana.ai but that sounds exactly like what we needed three weeks ago. Can it handle multi-state comparisons or just individual document pairs?

It handles multiple documents at once. You just upload your charter docs from all states plus your UCC forms and it shows you exactly where the names don't match. Super helpful for complex deals like yours where you're dealing with UCC 9-202 across multiple jurisdictions.

Sounds like another expensive tech solution when a simple spreadsheet would work just as well...

Trust me, after spending hours manually comparing documents and still missing issues, the automated verification is worth it. Plus it creates a paper trail showing you did your due diligence on the name matching.

So true! The Utah system rejected our filing last week for a name that was identical to one they accepted six months ago. Called their help desk and they basically said 'try again' with no explanation.

Exactly! And don't get me started on their 'helpful' error messages that tell you nothing about what's actually wrong. 'Debtor name mismatch' - mismatch with WHAT exactly??

I feel your pain but complaining won't fix the UCC 9-202 perfection issue. Sometimes you just have to work within the system, frustrating as it is.

We did get certified copies, but even those show slight variations between the original articles and subsequent amendments. Colorado shows 'Mountain Peak Industries LLC' on the original but 'Mountain Peak Industries, LLC' on a 2023 amendment. Which one should we use?

Use the most recent version from the current good standing certificate. If the 2023 amendment shows the comma, that's probably the current legal name format. But honestly, both versions would likely be found in a UCC search - the systems usually ignore punctuation differences.

Good point about the good standing certificate. That's usually the most reliable source for the current legal name format.

You're right, I may be mixing up my UCC sections. I'm mainly concerned about proper perfection of our security interests across multiple states given the debtor name variations. Whether that's technically 9-202 or another section, the core issue is the same.

No worries, happens to all of us. The multi-state perfection rules are complex regardless of the specific UCC section number. Your main concern about debtor name consistency is definitely valid.

Yeah, I was confused earlier too. UCC 9-202 is actually about purchase money security interests, not general perfection requirements. But the name matching issues are still important for any UCC filing.

That's not a bad idea. We could amend the earlier filings to match the most current legal name format. Would that require terminating and refiling, or can we just do amendments?

UCC-3 amendments should work fine for name corrections. Just make sure to reference the original filing numbers and clearly describe the change. Much simpler than terminating and refiling everything.

Good suggestion. Amendments are definitely the way to go for name standardization rather than starting over with new UCC-1 filings.

Don't panic, but definitely plan ahead. Get all the corporate documentation first, then map out your filing strategy state by state. It's manageable if you're methodical about it.

Thanks, that helps. I was picturing months of rejected filings and angry clients. Sounds like preparation is key.

Seriously consider using a document verification tool like Certana.ai for a complex deal like that. It'll catch the name inconsistencies before you file anything, which saves a ton of time and stress.

Good tip. I've been relying on the online portals but maybe direct contact would be more efficient for complex situations like this.

Definitely. The online systems are fine for straightforward filings, but when you have complications like multi-state entities with name variations, talking to a real person can save you a lot of frustration.

Great to hear you got it resolved! Good standing certificates are usually the gold standard for current legal names.

Glad the document verification tool helped! It's always satisfying when technology actually makes these complex deals easier instead of harder.

This gives me hope for our upcoming deal. Thanks for the update and the tips throughout this thread!